My previous post highlighted some of my ongoing concerns with President Trump. In the spirit of balance, let me offer some positives today because even though my concerns will probably never disappear, it’s always important to counter the false images being presented by Democrats and their minions in the media.

For instance, take that presumed travel ban on Muslims. I critiqued the administration for a bungled announcement about it that gave opponents what they needed to play the bigot card. The substance of that order, though, was widely mischaracterized. Let’s look at what it did and didn’t do.

But a little thing like facts is not what interests the ideologically blind.

I’m also, at this point, hopeful that Trump has a better understanding of what needs to be done to combat Islamic extremism. He, at least, unlike Obama, seems to realize it’s a genuine threat:

I didn’t comment earlier on his address to Congress. I have my concerns about his domestic plans when it comes to the amount of money he wants to spend on things that even the Democrats like. But what’s more interesting is that those Democrats are now exhibiting furrowed brows over domestic spending. When has that ever happened before?

It couldn’t be that it’s all just political, could it?

After Trump’s speech to Congress, the Democrats were ready with their response. I thought this particular cartoon was able to dispel the fog of vacuous verbiage and get to the heart of the matter:

Hypocrisy is never admirable, regardless of political party or particular politician.

I can’t say we’ve entered a new realm of silliness after the Orlando terrorist attack. There’s nothing new about the silliness that has been making the rounds from those on the progressive side of the cultural and political spectrum.

How to lay blame for what happened? If you listen to most Democrats/progressives/mainstream media (these are synonymous terms), you have a choice of targets: Christians (for not endorsing homosexual acceptance in society); Republicans in general (because they are naturally in favor of anything the “Christian Right” wants, right?); the NRA (those bloodthirsty gun owners who can’t wait to conduct their version of the Valentine’s Day Massacre); any combination of the above.

Never mind that the shooter boldly claimed allegiance to ISIS. Forget his history of radicalism, even to the point of rejoicing over 9/11. No, the blame for this attack must not be laid at the feet of Islamism. As President Obama famously stated in one of his autobiographies (more to come?), he will always take the side of Islam if he perceives it being under attack.

That’s why the words “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism” must never be uttered.

You can make too much of words, our Ideologue-in-Chief instructs us. Funny, but I remember him saying pretty much the opposite when he was first running for the highest office in the land:

How does a mind like Obama’s perceive reality? This illustration might offer a clue:

And that’s why he has once again focused laser-like on what he believes is the crux of the problem:

And the solution is what?

If you think some logic might be lacking here, that might be because you are a logical person:

But if the president can convince enough people to think as he does, he can accomplish his goal of protecting those poor, oppressed Islamists. I’m certain he will have their undying gratitude:

He did it again. Although, to be honest, I expected nothing less. What am I talking about? President Obama’s statement after the terrorist rampage in Orlando this weekend. Once more, he ignored what was staring him in the face. He refused to call what happened Islamic terrorism.

Yes, he said it was an act of terror, but, as always, he hid behind the old mantra of not really knowing what was behind it. We don’t have all the facts, you see. Never mind that the perpetrator called police and said he was doing this in solidarity with ISIS. Never mind that he shouted that typical “allahu akbar” phrase as he murdered 50 people.

No, this had nothing to do with Islam.

Then he did what he always does best: switch the subject to gun control. Again, never mind that this terrorist passed a background check and bought his guns legally. Never mind that no law will ever stop a lawbreaker from obtaining a weapon. Never mind that the penalty for this action will now fall on innocent gun owners who are responsible citizens and merely want a means of self-defense.

This is pure emotion, disconnected from reality. Unfortunately, some courts are willing to go along with it, such as the nefarious Ninth Circuit, well known for its “progressive” decisions.

President Obama learns all the wrong lessons from events. That’s because his ideology blinds him.

For those of us who refuse to be blinded, let’s take this away from the horror in Orlando: Islamic terrorism must be dealt with forcefully; regardless of the target of that terrorism, we must stand firmly against it. The terrorists want to destroy America. We must not allow that to happen.

It’s going to take leadership to turn that tide. I’m sad that the choices being put forward by the political parties are not the leaders we need. When I say we must pray for the future of our nation, I’m not just using a cliché. God is our refuge and our hope.

I suppose by now most of my regular readers are already conversant with the controversy at Wheaton College over tenured political science professor Larycia Hawkins. This erupted while I was on my Christmas sabbatical so I’ve not written anything about it yet.

Today I believe it is time to share what I think, not because I am the final word on it but simply because I’m so committed to Christian higher education that a turmoil like this affects the realm in which I minister and work.

Let’s review briefly what this controversy involves.

Larycia Hawkins, as you can see in the photo here, decided to wear the Muslim hijab as a statement of solidarity with her Muslim neighbors and/or friends.

But she didn’t stop there.

Hawkins also made a statement to the effect that both Christians and Muslims are people of the book (assuming she means the Bible) and worship the same God.

Hence the controversy.

Wheaton, an evangelical institution, suspended her temporarily while starting the process for her to explain her position more carefully before making a judgment on her future with the college. The result of that investigation has now led Wheaton to recommend her termination as a professor. That recommendation must now go through the rest of the process before it is finalized.

Is this fair? What should we think about Hawkins and this episode?

First, I stand solidly in the camp that says Christians and Muslims definitely do not worship the same God. Neither do I believe Muslims are followers of the Bible. Just because they trace their ancestry back to the patriarch Abraham, that is not sufficient. The Koran is not the Bible. Mohammad is not Jesus. The place of Jesus in Islam is subordinate; He is not considered the true Son of God who died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.

The fact that there is any controversy at all about these points sheds light on the sad state of modern evangelicalism.

Further, Hawkins sought out the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for guidance on wearing the hijab. That organization has been linked to radical jihadism while simultaneously putting on an appearance of even-handedness and fairness. It is one of the most deceptive organizations operating in our country with respect to what it actually promotes.

That she would seek out CAIR says a lot to me about her views. Reports now also show that she has been questioned previously three times with regard to her Christian orthodoxy:

She wrote an academic paper on black liberation theology that seemed to endorse Marxism;

She was at a party associated with Chicago’s Gay Pride Parade;

She has challenged the college’s Biblical stance on sexuality.

Rather than perceiving her as a persecuted individual, I think these incidents reveal Hawkins as someone outside the mainstream of Christian belief. Wheaton has every right to terminate someone with her views, given the college’s statement of faith.

Let’s be clear: either a Christian college stands by its statement of faith or it should surrender its identity as Christian.

What’s more troubling to me, though, is that Hawkins appears to have rather widespread support at Wheaton, by faculty, students, and alumni. If true, what does this say about the solidity of its Christian witness?

Why was Hawkins hired in the first place? Was there no indication of her views at that time? Or, more disturbing, are her views accepted and/or commonplace in the political science department?

Why would so many students support her, given her deviations from orthodoxy? Is this an indication of what they are being taught by the majority of the faculty? Is the statement of faith merely window dressing for parents thinking they are sending their children to a bastion of Christian fundamentals (which is not identical with fundamentalism as a movement)?

I have no animus toward Wheaton. When I did some research there last year, I was treated well by those at the Billy Graham Center and at the Marion E. Wade Center. Rather than an animus, I have a special place in my heart for such memories and the help I received.

My concern is simply that Christians be Christian, and that they make a strong witness to the world as to what that means. Accepting ideas that blend Christianity and Islam, that promote an anti-Christian Marxist philosophy, or that dismiss Biblical doctrines on sexuality are an attempt to undermine clear Christian teaching.

I’ve been concerned about this trend for a long time. The Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) claims to represent conservative Christian institutions of higher learning, yet when two of its member colleges decided homosexual marriage was acceptable, there was not an immediate dismissal of those colleges from membership. They were relegated to a lower status in the organization, but apparently continue to have ties to it.

Evangelicals are sending an unclear message to the world. Well, maybe that’s not quite accurate. Perhaps the message is clear after all: we no longer take Biblical truth seriously.

I hope I’m wrong. You can be sure I’ll be following developments very carefully.

Well, I’m sure glad President Obama spoke to the American people the other night and assured us he is on the job against Islamic terrorism. He was quite direct in how he was adjusting his strategy to deal with this issue: no adjustment necessary.

So what did you hear if you watched his little speech? Probably the same thing most of us heard.

What we did learn, though, is that Americans can’t be trusted with guns and that more gun control laws will stop terrorism. Can’t wait to see how that works, can you?

We also received a scolding on our attitudes toward Muslims, which seems to be the greatest threat now to the nation, in his estimation. I guess it’s all those “hate crimes” committed against Muslims ever since 9/11. We’re just so intolerant that all Muslims now feel threatened by our hostility toward them.

Right. All the crime statistics say otherwise. Most of the catalogued hate crimes are against Jews, not Muslims, and from my perspective, it’s the Christians who are now in the crosshairs, especially from this administration.

Do you ever wonder how Obama would have responded if he had been president and 9/11 occurred on his watch?

We could also project him back into another massive historical attack, one that we commemorated just a few days ago. In fact, some cartoonists have done just that. Here’s their perspective:

Nicholas Thalasinos was one of the victims in the terrorist attack in San Bernardino last week. He was one of Syed Farook’s co-workers. Thalasinos was a Messianic Jew—a Jew who had come to recognize Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah—and who was deeply concerned about the threat of radical Islam.

Reports indicate that Thalasinos and Farook had argued over whether Islam is a religion of peace, with Thalasinos challenging Farook’s assertion that it is. Apparently, Farook sought to prove he was correct by peacefully murdering fourteen of his co-workers, of whom Thalasinos was probably a chief target.

The mainstream media wants to hide as much as possible the fact that what is occurring here is a jihad against Christianity. Both Christians and Jews have reason to be wary of Islam. For Thalasinos, the threat was doubled because he was both. He paid for his outspoken faith with his life. His reward is that he is now with the Lord.

A New York Daily News columnist, Linda Stasi, wrote an opinion piece a couple of days ago that has garnered a lot of attention. Stasi wrote that Thalasinos was not an innocent victim but the equivalent to Farook on the Christian side. Why? She wrote,

Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. . . .

Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security.

And for those views, he must die?

Do you see what she has done here? She has cultivated a time-dishonored technique called “moral equivalence.” Leftists used to do this with the Cold War, declaring that yes, the Soviet Union wasn’t wonderful, but that the US was just as bad. The goal was to diminish the evil in the former and concoct evils in the latter.

Stasi has done precisely this. Because Thalasinos fervently believed in his Christian faith and it led him to be in favor of the Second Amendment and become vocally and “rabidly” pro-life, he was just as bad as Farook.

Her “journalism” is the worst kind. Unfortunately, it is gaining ground. The mainstream media continues to search for ways to exonerate the real terrorists and blame others for supposedly making them radicalized. They have staked out their own territory around every Islamic act of terrorism:

There are those, even in the Christian community, who want to deny there is a culture war going on. Some will even blame people like me who comment on what we see happening. It’s a special type of spiritual blindness, and if not halted, will only aid and abet future atrocities.

There is no moral equivalence here. One side speaks out for life and religious liberty; the other uses guns and terror to make its points. We need to see the difference clearly and continue to stand against both the terrorists and those who, by design or unwittingly, make apologies for them.

More information has come out now about the couple that systematically murdered fourteen people in San Bernardino two days ago. The man, Syed Farook, made more than one trip to Saudi Arabia and also went to Pakistan. It was in Saudi Arabia where he married Tashfeen Malik. Investigators now are leaning toward the idea that she radicalized him.

Their home was a veritable arsenal, a factory for making bombs, etc. They were armed to the hilt, and the investigation seems to reveal that they had bigger plans than what they carried out on that fateful day. We also now know that he had been visiting terrorist websites and probably had contacts with either Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Let’s get serious here. This was a radical Islamist terrorist attack on American soil, and it probably was orchestrated with help from others. They were not a “lone wolf” couple.

Yet the FBI, under constraints from the Obama administration, has not been able to declare it terrorism. The definition of the term has become so narrowed that common sense has been left behind.

Of course, common sense has never been a part of the current administration. Our president will do whatever it takes to deflect blame from the obvious source whenever it involves Islam:

This comes on the heels of reports that those responsible for providing intelligence on the terrorist threat have been playing down the seriousness of what we face. One report, from respected journalist Sharyl Attkisson, reveals that Obama got to the point where he didn’t want to hear any more about it, that he refused to listen to the facts.

If true, this puts us all in graver danger than we have realized:

Despite all the evidence, our president chooses to focus on a largely non-existent problem as the greatest threat of all:

I’m sure the terrorists are running scared:

If anyone had told you seven years ago that we would be where we are today, you wouldn’t have believed it. We are living in a theater of the absurd.